Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

Brad, I really appreciate your advise, as I told you because of your communications with me I am moving forward with populating the website that I already possessed and have begun to consult to produce an online book, we even discussed this morning doing a short YOUTUBE video to introduce the concepts to a wider audience (may ask for some assistance on this from you)

Honestly I am not looking to debate those that profess other theories and beliefs, as far as I am concerned they are obsolete and a waste of our time, the purveyors of these theories hopefully will discover that their theories do not reflect reality and in time the theories will fade away.

I am interested in having people with good intent critique this model and then start researchers not only seriously considering and understanding its ramifications, but to start analyzing data based on it, the more hands working on this the better.

Brad, seriously please do not consider removing your posts, this is not some pristine sanitized thread, this is an ongoing dialog and all honest comments are welcome. You have made significant contributions and I thank you for them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 520
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If anyone wants to contact me I just set-up a new mail address

DeconstructiongTheLies@gmail.com

I would welcome all serious inquiries and comments.

If there is any intention to email criticism of the model, please don't, I would prefer it be done on open forum.

Also I really do not care what your opinion of me or the model is, I care about what evidence has not been accounted for that you feel may affect the validity of the Assassination Four Shot Model.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been advised to discontinue posting evidence, analysis and conjecture on the Assassination Four Shot Model until the website and online documentary become available, I think this is good advice.

Since the JFK assassination community does not seem to be willing or capable of addressing the evidence already presented it seems counterproductive to continue to present additional evidence to a community that prefers to remain asleep, uninvolved or uncommitted.

It is obvious that there are dragons that need to be slain before this evidence can become real to researchers, nor am I able to deal with your fears that dictate the model requires the blessing from ruling 'pundits' before miraculously becoming acceptable. Just...please...keep in mind the 'pundits' and 'academics' have spent their lives proving myths, they will not alter their dogmas until no one will longer listen to their words.

If you can see that any piece of evidence that I have presented is valid, it is the beginning of the end of a myth because virtually everything posted is in conflict with what you now most likely believe, start with that one piece of evidence and start deconstructing the lies.

Last bit of yada yada, keep in mind, in reality I have already provided abundant evidence that is conclusively disproving contemporary theories, how much evidence do you require to change your mind, will there ever be enough?

Don't wait for my website, you have all the evidence required to start to unravel the lies and to see the truth.

Start Deconstructing The Lies.

Best wishes

Be Well

Bob Mady

Edited by Robert Mady
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Robert:

I am on the road at the moment but will answer you later today or this evening. I assume that by "primary wound of entry" you are referring to the wound of entry on John Connally's back?

Gary

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gary, that is correct, I am still curious if the locations of CONNALLYS wounds could have been altered, particularly the back wound.

The first impression I had of CONNALLYS wound was that the first entry wound was below his right armpit, on his side or almost on his side. Could this have been moved by description and deception to more towards his back to better accommodate a shot from the rear and possibly higher?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gary, that is correct, I am still curious if the locations of CONNALLYS wounds could have been altered, particularly the back wound.

The first impression I had of CONNALLYS wound was that the first entry wound was below his right armpit, on his side or almost on his side. Could this have been moved by description and deception to more towards his back to better accommodate a shot from the rear and possibly higher?

Hello Robert:

I apologize for not answering sooner but as explained earlier in this thread I had to wait until I arrived back home this evening so I could access my notes and those of the PMH doctors who treated John Connally. My immediate answer to your query as to whether or not the rear wound of entry "could have been moved by description and deception to more towards his back to better accommodate a shot from the rear and possibly higher..." is no, I don't believe so, but might I ask who or whom you believe may have "moved" this same point of entry?. You also indicated that your first "impression" of this wound site was that it "was below his right armpit, on his side or almost on his side." This is actually fairly close to the description of the point of entry as described by the two physicians best qualified to indicate the point of entry - Dr. Red Duke and Dr. Robert Shaw. Unfortunately, and in answer to your first question from post # 290, this thread, the X-rays cannot of themselves tell us anything "concerning the primary wound of entry"... it simply is not visible on the X-rays, nor would I have expected it to be so. Dr. Shaw twice testified to Arlen Specter regarding this specific point of entry - the first time during his March 23, 1964 deposition session at Parkland Memorial Hospital, at which time he indicated that the point of entry was "in the right posterior shoulder, which is medial to the fold of the axilla"[6H85] A month later during his April 21st testimony session in Washington before members of the WC, he described this "point" of entry as occurring "just medial to the axillary fold or crease of the armpit..."[4H104]. In truth if you look at Dr. Shaw's post operative formal typed report dated November 22, the day of the assassination, he worded this entry point in this manner: "It was found that the wound of entrance was just lateral to the right scapula close to the axilla..."[CE392, WR531] It would appear that the two answer's on record with the Commission are an amalgam of his formal report statement, a copy of which I believe he had access to in his sessions with Specter. Unfortunately Dr. Duke was not called to testify nor deposed by Specter or any other Commission counsel. I went back and dug out the rough post-op handwritten notes constructed by Duke, who was the first individual to see Connally, and the notes of Dr. Shaw. In these notes the rear wound of entry is described in this manner: "46 year old WM ["white male"] Governor or Texas who received a GSW ["gun shot wound"] to the right chest which entered via the tissues in the posterior axillary line laterally and up to the point of the scapula, transversed the tissues in and medially of the right thoracic wall and exited at a point of the 5th rib just lateral to the right medial chest." [phrases in brackets my translations of the doctors abbreviations]. In a sense I agree with part of your assessment/interpretation of this wound of entry, for I have always contended, right or wrong, that when examined closely the missile responsible for the Governor's chest wound almost missed him - striking him at a fairly acute angle, tangentially to his right side and tunneled through and along the lateral medial aspect of his chest wall. Curiously enough during his brief November 9, 1977 deposition session with members of the HSCA, Dr. Shaw was not asked any specific questions regarding the precise point of this same rear wound of entry.

Gary

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gary, you are a wealth of knowledge and I thank you for generously taking the time to share.

To answer your question, the WC would want to provide evidence that the shot that wounded CONNALLY had a trajectory that had a plausible connection with the wounds on KENNEDY. The WC by necessity would have attempted to influence our perception of where the wounds were located to better fit their story.

Moving the location of CONNALLYS wounds a few inches can change alignments dramatically resulting in different trajectories.

Am I correct in interpreting medical description to mean the wound was between the shoulder blade and the armpit and could also be termed to be on his side?

How low or high was the wound?

If I feel the bottom of shoulder blade, the wound was between the bottom of this bone and the fold of the armpit?

The askew shirt the FBI photographed provides visual proof that the shirt was maybe rolled inward to move the wound more towards the back and material definitely pulled higher to raise the side wound significantly. Gary, this explanation for the askew shirt supports contention the WC attempted to align seven wounds and one bullet. We must be skeptical about evidence improperly displayed, there cannot be any realistic reason a professional forensic agent could be so careless about presenting and recording vital evidence and then this recorded evidence readily accepted at all levels within the FBI as adequate is absurd. There is something inherently wrong with this evidence and unequivocal acceptance of it by the FBI and WC should not have been appropriate.

Are there no photographs depicting the side wound on CONNALLY?

His chest or his leg?

Edited by Robert Mady
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Robert:

Again, and with apologies, I will provide you with a more detailed answer later today - work/"real life" does have a tendency to get in the way of things!! One thing I can tell you very quickly is that to my knowledge there exists no known photographic images of any of John Connally's wound sites. More later...

Gary

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Robert:

Again, and with apologies, I will provide you with a more detailed answer later today - work/"real life" does have a tendency to get in the way of things!! One thing I can tell you very quickly is that to my knowledge there exists no known photographic images of any of John Connally's wound sites. More later...

Gary

As promised, a continuation of my initial response to your posting # 294.

While I will agree with the conceptual nuance that the WC, more specifically members of the WC staff, attempted to sell the SBT at any cost, including no real effort to precisely illustrate their interpretation/positioning of just where, physically on the body of John Connally this wound of entrance occurred, they really could have done so - if they wanted to. After all, Specter and members of this same Commission had John Connally in front of them, with his shirt removed, on the afternoon of April 21, 1964. And though they took this occasion to have Dr. Shaw measure, with calipers, the downward, back to front, trajectory of the wounding missile and its path, they did not have Dr. Shaw make or reveal any specific measurements for the position of this wound based upon fixed anatomical landmarks available to the doctor. Their descriptions of the position of the holes in the clothing, as written in the Commission Report, reflect measurements passed along to them from Robert Frazier.[WCR93-94] Curiously enough these clothing measurements taken by Frazier are a close match the position of the point of entry on Connally's back as constructed by members of the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel [JFK Exhibit F-377] In essence you are basically "correct" when you indicate that this same positioning, clothing and "body", is representative of a wound site that is lateral to the base of the scapula and between this same anatomical point and the "fold of the armpit," a positioning also drawn/approximated by Dr. Robert Shaw.

"How high or low was the wound" you asked? This is one Frazier measurement that the WC staff left out of their report. On his lab clothing diagrams Frazier positioned the aperture on the back of the suit jacket as being 8", or just over 20 cms below the top of the suit jacket collar, and 7.25", or 18.41 cms to the right of the mid-line of the jacket to the center of the hole. His parallel measurements on the underlying Arrow dress shirt were given, by Frazier as 9" [22.86 cms] from the top of the shirt collar and 7.5" [19.05 cms] to the right of the mid-line of the shirt to the first of two holes present on the back of the shirt. For their part, the Forensic Pathology Panel of the HSCA placed this rear thoracic entry wound as being situated some 18 cms - 7.08" from the top of the spinal column [at T1] and some 20 cms - 7.87" from the middle of this same spinal column. As you can see in comparing the two sets of measurements - the clothing constructed by Robert Frazier vs the "body" measurements of the FPP-HSCA, the measurements are in essence flipped/reversed, with the HSCA actually positioning their "body" wound of entry more toward the "Governor's" right side than that as represented by the clothing measurements of 1964.

I still would agree to disagree with you that members of the FBI lab intentionally positioned the clothing, in particular the shirt, for photography as they did in an effort to help members of the WC staff sell the SBT. Rather, I feel it is much more likely that though developed between January and March of 1964 buy members of the WC staff, the real selling point would become the farcical reconstruction effort of May 24, 1964, in Dealey Plaza. Whether or not the apertures on the clothing are representative of the conclusions of this same reconstruction is definitely open to debate/interpretation.

Gary

Link to post
Share on other sites

Robert you may be interested in this link, if you have not seen such...b

John Connally's bloody shirt from Kennedy assassination on display | Daily Mail Online

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2462106/John-Connallys-bloody-shirt-Kennedy-assassination-display.html

also a photo of his shirt, I think this may have been from the w.c...and a drawn simili by someone of the entry wound, I am sorry to say I cannot give credit to the artist as I did not copy his name, so I cannot say positively that the schematic is correct.. sorry about that...best b

post-632-0-24454500-1416007909_thumb.jpg

post-632-0-75121900-1416007937_thumb.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gary, do you have photographs of the back of CONNALYS shirt you could post?

Photographs of the Back of CONNALLYS jacket?

thanks in advance.

Yes, Robert, I do and I will either post them or get someone else from this forum to do so for me; I, like Vince Palamara, have difficulty with this. And Bernice, the illustration you posted for Robert's edification is from work done by James Gordon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...